Obama’s on record as repudiating their endorsements. Why do you continue to claim that there is some association between him and these organizations?
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
Obama’s on record as repudiating their endorsements. Why do you continue to claim that there is some association between him and these organizations?
[/QUOTE]
Whether he repudiated them or not it is a simple statement of fact that they endorsed him. People are free to evaluate that information for themselves. As well as his repudiation, which, personally, I accept.
For example, when Reagan ran for president, he was endorsed by some white supremacist organizations. Was never made an issue in the campaign, nor should it have been.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
But, it isn’t a falsehood. It is exactly what McCain said.
Ron Paul responds to McCain
[/QUOTE]
Mc Cain was talking about having some troops stationned in Iraq. Akin to the ones in South Korea and Germany after the wars, but only if necessary and if soldiers aren’t dying (they aren’t in South Korea and Germany).
Obama knows this yet makes it sound as if Mc Cain wants to stay in Iraq 100 years. It’s what I would expect from a politician. I’m pro-Obama but that doesn’t mean I’m going to lie to myself to suit my fantasies or keep my world simple.
Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.
Now, back to the topic. The way things are now, I like both Hillary and Obama’s health plans (I prefer Hillary’s, people should have to opt out, not in). Otherwise, I think Obama will be better PR with other countries. Both Obama, Clinton and many others would bring pride to this country and boost universal equality values.
They both have fervent supporters they do not want to disappoint and they are both ambitious, reason enough for both of them to keep fighting til the end. They are both politicians and they lie and play dirty sometimes. Nothing we can do about it. The count is so close that if Obama doesn’t get both delegate majority and popular vote, the supers will be able to play it either way.
Thus, in the end, it’s all about who you personally think will be a better president. Obama or the Clinton team. There is really no possible consensus on this. I wonder how much uglier things will get.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
But, it isn’t a falsehood. It is exactly what McCain said.
Ron Paul responds to McCain
[/QUOTE]
Did you actaully listen to your own cite? It’s exactly what he did NOT say. Gozu nailed it.
Wait, I thought Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Has he been dethroned?
If Vlad the Impaler somehow came back to life, became a Senator, and ran for President as a Democrat, they would say he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
[QUOTE=DoctorJ]
Wait, I thought Kerry had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Has he been dethroned?
If Vlad the Impaler somehow came back to life, became a Senator, and ran for President as a Democrat, they would say he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
[/QUOTE]
They’re referring to an article in the National Journal which compared voting records.
Obama notes that most of the votes used by the Journal represent things that shouldn’t be “liberal vs. conservative” but rather things America largely wants such as government ethics accountability, embryonic stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, etc. You can read through the votes yourself and make your own conclusions at how meaningful “most liberal senator” is.
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
For example, when Reagan ran for president, he was endorsed by some white supremacist organizations. Was never made an issue in the campaign, nor should it have been.
[/QUOTE]
Reagan wasn’t a racially confused young man as Obama has stated he was in his own books. That’s a difference.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
Ferraro’s remarks are racist. There is no other way to spin it, no false accusation. She essentially said that Obama’s popularity and lead in the primary is because he is black, as if being black is a great advantage. :rolleyes: Ferraro’s remark denigrates Obama’s – all African American’s - accomplishments.
I don’t believe Ferraro’s comments were unplanned. The Clintons and surrogates are smart people. Everything that has occurred in the Clinton campaign is by design.
I didn’t say you are disingenuous. I am saying that denying the Rev Wright controversy and Ferraro’s comments are about race and fueling racism is disingenuous.
Wasn’t Bill Clinton also incorrectly labeled a radical liberal? Personally, I want a liberal/progressive in the White House. I don’t think the corporate world wants a liberal, which explains the media coverage. I am tired of conservatism dominating the culture and neoconservatives pushing Democratic candidates to the right. The Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers were created as a reaction to racism. I would like to see the Clinton camp dispel racism instead of embracing it to win an election.
And for the record, Obama is my first choice, but I always planned to vote for HRC if she won the nomination. I have defended HRC on this board because she has been the recipient of vulgar, sexist remarks. Over the course of this campaign, I have lost all respect for the Clintons; they are using the same tactics against Obama that were used against them. Again, we live in a culture that encourages winning at all costs, cheat to win, lie to win, but win, win, win. There are no ethics or boundaries anymore. It is the wild-wild west. At least Obama is trying to use intellect instead of capitalizing on ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
We’ll agree to disagree on Ferraro’s remarks. They were not racist, IMHO.
Belittling reverse racism is no better than belittling racism.
[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
Part of my answer to this ties in with your second paragraph, but I’ll cover one part now. Candidates drop out of primaries all the time. It has nothing to do with people getting a chance to finish voting and everything with moving the campaign and the party forward.
Part of the reason that you’re seeing voters turn off of the opposing is because this campaign is dragging on. It’s anecdotal, but I’ve seen a few posters on this board recently saying that Bosnia and Hillary’s redrudging of Wright in response, and the letter by Hillary supporters to Nancy Pelosi are causing them to rethink voting for Hillary should she get the nomination. I haven’t seen any reasons for the opposite (not supporting Obama), or I’d post them. That’s all within the last week. We still have presumably until June. The longer this campaign goes, and the more mud that gets dragged up, the more hard feelings are going to be created.
And as it stands right now, the percentage of supporters that won’t vote for the other candidate may not impact traditionally blue states. Obama is actually faring better against McCain in California than Hillary right now. That may change the longer this drags on, but then isn’t that illustrating my point of why it’s better to end this sooner?
Agreed that it’s hard to predict, but mine is the easier conclusion to make. Hillary’s negatives are at all time highs. Quoting the factual bits from the opinion piece.Plus her foreign policy claims may take a further hit if this catches.
As far as the damage the Wright controversy has caused, not so much. I can’t deny that it’s possible for Hillary to go into Denver with a lead in popular vote. Things could change after Pennsylvania, which is a likely win for Hillary. It’s still long odds though.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, it’s long odds. The Clintons do surprisingly well when long odds are at play. We’ll see.
Non sequitur.
The point here is that Obama has no control over which organizations choose to endorse him. He can only reject the endorsements of those organizations. He’s done that.
You want to smear Obama by pretending he has an association with these groups when he in fact doesn’t. You appear to want to capitalize on irrational fears which exist in some segments of the electorate.
There are two possibilities here. Either you personally have a problem with Obama’s ethnic background, or you think a segment of Democratic voters do, and you want to manipulate their fears to favor your candidate.
Now that I know where you stand, I’ll be sure to stay upwind.
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
Non sequitur.
The point here is that Obama has no control over which organizations choose to endorse him. He can only reject the endorsements of those organizations. He’s done that.
You want to smear Obama by pretending he has an association with these groups when he in fact doesn’t. You appear to want to capitalize on irrational fears which exist in some segments of the electorate.
There are two possibilities here. Either you personally have a problem with Obama’s ethnic background, or you think a segment of Democratic voters do, and you want to manipulate their fears to favor your candidate.
Now that I know where you stand, I’ll be sure to stay upwind.
[/QUOTE]
You can impute motives and make accusations to your hearts content, be my guest.
The point is that a formerly racially confused young man is more of a concern than Reagan when it comes to racist endorsements. You’re the one that made the comparison. They’re not the same.
As far as what I want to capitalize on, who the hell cares what I want? I’m just one person expressing an opinion as to how I think that story will play.
I do believe a segment of American voters have a problem with those endorsements. I guess you don’t.
You might want to stay upwind from them as well, but I’m reasonably sure you can’t stay upwind from reality. No matter what accusations you throw around.
So it’s the latter then - manipulating people’s irrational fears as a campaign strategy.
[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Did you actaully listen to your own cite? It’s exactly what he did NOT say. Gozu nailed it.
[/QUOTE]
I did listen. To paraphrase McCain: The U.S. military can stay in Iraq for a hundred years and that’s fine by me. It really doesn’t matter if McCain meant maintaining a presence in Iraq as apposed to actual war, considering recent events in Iraq, the Iraqi people and the rest of the world view U.S. presence as an occupation. How long will the violence continue? How long can American soldiers endure two, three, and four back to back deployments to Iraq? I don’t think the U.S. can sustain the gargantuan defense budget much longer. I am not sure how Obama is spinning McCain’s stance on the war, but HRC, Ron Paul, and others have been equally critical – rightfully so. I respect McCain. He has served this country honorably for years; however, McCain needs to think of the world differently. This isn’t the post WWII cold war. It is a new global economic war.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
We’ll agree to disagree on Ferraro’s remarks. They were not racist, IMHO.
Belittling reverse racism is no better than belittling racism.
[/QUOTE]
We have a different definition of racism. I don’t believe in reverse white racism. To imply that Ferraro was the victim of reverse racism because she was criticized for her racist comments is absurd. It is equally absurd to imply that Obama’s success is because he is black, not only is he black but he has an odd name. This is generally not viewed as a leg up in society. Obama’s success can be attributed to his amazing orator skills, brilliant campaign, and inspirational message. It makes more sense to attribute talent to his success than the black man advantage theory. Incidentally, Obama’s campaign strategy is going to be studied and imitated by others in the future.
[QUOTE=Belowjob2.0]
So it’s the latter then - manipulating people’s irrational fears as a campaign strategy.
[/QUOTE]
“Manipulating people’s irrational fears as a campaign strategy” is what? What I’m doing? Last time I checked, I’m not part of the campaign.
I’ve stated how I believe those incidents will be understood by some people. Period.
If you can’t or won’t understand that – or dismiss those people as ‘irrationally’ afraid – then that’s your right. Call them whatever you’d like. They’re probably racists too. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=unconventional]
We have a different definition of racism. I don’t believe in reverse white racism. To imply that Ferraro was the victim of reverse racism because she was criticized for her racist comments is absurd. It is equally absurd to imply that Obama’s success is because he is black, not only is he black but he has an odd name. This is generally not viewed as a leg up in society. Obama’s success can be attributed to his amazing orator skills, brilliant campaign, and inspirational message. It makes more sense to attribute talent to his success than the black man advantage theory. Incidentally, Obama’s campaign strategy is going to be studied and imitated by others in the future.
[/QUOTE]
Particularly, I suspect, his brilliant strategy of playing the race card.
Yes, we do have a different definition of racism, apparently.
You don’t believe in the existence of racism against white people. Okay.
Oh yeah, and supporting a minority with “an odd name” is considered pretty hip in the current cultural climate. It is a leg up for many.
[QUOTE=unconventional]
I did listen. To paraphrase McCain: The U.S. military can stay in Iraq for a hundred years and that’s fine by me. It really doesn’t matter if McCain meant maintaining a presence in Iraq as apposed to actual war, considering recent events in Iraq, the Iraqi people and the rest of the world view U.S. presence as an occupation. How long will the violence continue? How long can American soldiers endure two, three, and four back to back deployments to Iraq? I don’t think the U.S. can sustain the gargantuan defense budget much longer. I am not sure how Obama is spinning McCain’s stance on the war, but HRC, Ron Paul, and others have been equally critical – rightfully so. I respect McCain. He has served this country honorably for years; however, McCain needs to think of the world differently. This isn’t the post WWII cold war. It is a new global economic war.
[/QUOTE]
I think it does matter if he meant a presence in Iraq vs. an actual war. There’s quite a difference.
When was the last time we had two, three, and four back to back deployments to Korea to quell “violence”? We’ve been there for 50 years.
But playing politics with war and jumping on one phrase and deliberately taking it out of context to poke fun at an opponent isn’t new to Obama. Actually, to be fair, it’s something all politicians do. Which just makes Obama like everyone else rather than the Messiah.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Nor did Obama “win” Texas- he did squeeze a couple more Delegates due to the Caucus, but Clinton got +101,029 or +3.5% more of the polular vote that Obama did. (That raise a good poiint- Obama-ites here are constantly whining about the Superdelegates not being “the will of the people” but Hillary got a smally but significant edge over Obama in Texas, but he still ended up with more delegates, due to the Caucuses. Should Obama cede those vote to Hillary? :dubious: )
[/QUOTE]
The caucus is based upon popular vote, which elects delegates. Obama won the caucus’ popular vote by a greater margin than Hillary won the primary’s popular vote. That’s why Obama won the most delegates in Texas. Caucuses are the will of the people, too.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I think it does matter if he meant a presence in Iraq vs. an actual war. There’s quite a difference.
When was the last time we had two, three, and four back to back deployments to Korea to quell “violence”? We’ve been there for 50 years.
But playing politics with war and jumping on one phrase and deliberately taking it out of context to poke fun at an opponent isn’t new to Obama. Actually, to be fair, it’s something all politicians do. Which just makes Obama like everyone else rather than the Messiah.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, good grief. Of course Obama is a politician and a good one. No one views Obama as a messiah. I certainly don’t, and I’ll go out on a limb to say that probably most supporters view Obama as a fallible man and a novice politician.
Now, we are splitting hairs over comments made by Obama concerning McCain’s stance on the war. I haven’t heard Obama talk about McCain’s 100 year war; although, I am sure he did. A quick Google search yields plenty of hits for HRC’s response to McCain, I couldn’t find any for Obama.
There is a fundamental difference between spinning an opponent’s stance on issues and a smear intended to attack an opponent’s character or credibility. Smear tactics usually aren’t based on truth. Neither the McCain nor Kerry smears were based on truth. In fact, the more fabricated and outlandish the smear, the better it seems to work.